It may have been a brutal attack on Iraq, but calling it genocide shows a total lack of historical awareness and really does devalue the term in the cases where it ought to be used.

 

- Did Blair ever bring in an 'us vs. them' narrative with regards to Iraqi people?

- Did he ever equate the Iraqis with animals, or diseases that need to be exterminated?

- Was hate propaganda about the Iraqi people ever broadcast to make the British people think of them as less than human?

- Did Tony portray the Iraq War as an attempt to finally 'exterminate' these less than human Iraqis?

- Do you really think at any point that the intention of the Iraq War was to wipe out every living Iraqi man, woman and child?

 

The answer to all of the above is no. There have been cases where the above has been true - Armenia, Rwanda, Bosnia, the Holocaust. Iraq is quite definitely not one of them. throwing around the term 'genocide' diminishes the likes of the Holocaust by making them out as just something in the broad stroke of history that any run-of-the-mill war always comes up with.

 

In the literal sense of the word you are right, there was no racial or Hitler style master race element to it

 

But in many ways this is even worse, Hitler had a vision, an extremely f***ed up one but still a vision that drove him to do what he did

 

Milosevic and Karadzic were nationalists who again did what they did out of a twisted vision

 

Blair and Bush just massacred 26,000 Iraqis for kicks as if they were playing a video game, no vision or motive or warped logic, just plain old killing spree, there was no strategic or military importance into carpet bombing residential areas of Baghdad

Edited October 21, 201311 yr by Sandro Ranieri

You haven't read it but it would've been 'at best tinkering at the edges'? So basically at this point you're admitting you're assuming the Labour plan would've been bad solely on partisanship rather than any evidence.

 

The Darling Plan held off cuts for another year and aimed to cut the deficit by half by the end of 2015 with a view to getting rid of it in the next Parliament - an aim which even the Tories don't look like they're going to deliver. It made this plan on the basis that bringing in cuts when the economy was still in recovery would've sent it back into recession (a claim which has since been proved right) and that you need to wait until the economy is strong and generating jobs and increased tax receipts - dealing with the revenue end of the deficit - before you can make cuts without harming the economy too much in order to deal with the outgoings end of the deficit.

 

Hardly 'tinkering at the edges' considering it called for pretty big cuts - not as big as the coalition's, but still about 70% as large - but remembered that deficits aren't just about how much you're spending, but also about how much you're bringing it. You don't necessarily need to increase taxes by much if recovery increases tax receipts for you. Hence it doesn't really matter if xyz account for over a third of government spending if you're earning that money - in the same way as you don't try and cut off half your house to reduce your rent even though it might account for a third of your spending: you cut in less necessary areas.

 

And the NHS reforms weren't exactly focused on saving money so much as they were focused on privatising certain elements of the NHS. The NHS reforms were ideology at play, not accounting.

 

I can't really comment on the Darling Plan until I have read it, i will get up to speed on it next week when i am in the UK again and update this thread with my thoughts

 

seems half the regulars on here live in Dorset. Of course, an alternative to the vote-losing cutting off wealthy pensioners (who would in any case just spend cash on expensive housing till they qualified in terms of bank balance) would to be raise taxes on those lucky enough to live in big houses, or earn lots of money, or have bank accounts with lots of cash. Maybe the Conservatives would like to consider that. Of course, no-one is forcing rich pensioners to claim benefits, and i daresay most of them don't. Don't think free bus pass is much of an issue in Sandbanks. Free luxury yacht pass maybe :lol:

 

Raising taxes on large properties will not bring in any money

 

Someone with say a £2m home will just set up a Bermuda based property management company and transfer the home as an asset into that for example or transfer the home to an offshore family trust

Edited October 21, 201311 yr by Sandro Ranieri

Also, how does he even know if the people in Sandbanks are claiming state pensions?

 

Whether they are or not they are still legally entitled to it

 

Lord Sugar is legally entitled to a state pension, free prescriptions and eye tests and the winter fuel allowance despite being a billionaire, its absurd

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13...nt-want-it.html

Edited October 21, 201311 yr by Sandro Ranieri

Have you any idea how much that would cost? Actually, on second thoughts, perhaps the question should have ended at the word "idea".

 

Initial costs would be high but money would be saved over time

 

It is essential that the welfare state is rolled back to what it was originally created for, a safety net for those genuinely in need, an idea I support

 

Welfare should not be there for handouts for millionaires, it should not be there to subsidise the feckless who can't keep their legs closed and churn out kid after kid, it should not be there to subsidise career claimants who can't be bothered looking for work, it should not be there for immigrants who have never paid a penny in NI

 

Whole welfare system needs reforming radically

Initial costs would be high but money would be saved over time

 

It is essential that the welfare state is rolled back to what it was originally created for, a safety net for those genuinely in need, an idea I support

 

Welfare should not be there for handouts for millionaires, it should not be there to subsidise the feckless who can't keep their legs closed and churn out kid after kid, it should not be there to subsidise career claimants who can't be bothered looking for work, it should not be there for immigrants who have never paid a penny in NI

 

Whole welfare system needs reforming radically

It would save nothing at all. How frequently do you propose these inspections should be carried out? After all, just because somebody doesn't have an expensive television today that doesn't mean they won't have one tomorrow.

 

The state pension was established for everyone and it should stay that way. Of course changes are necessary including an increase in the state pension age. When it was set at 65 for men and 60 for women a high proportion of people didn't reach that age. Even those that did often didn't last for more than a few years (particularly men). Now nearly everybody reaches pension age with a significant number living for a further 20-30 years or more.

 

The big problem is that the retirement age should have risen decades ago but politicians lacked the courage to do it. The first signs that there were problems on the horizon came in the 1980s. The Tory government ordered a review of the pension system and started saying changes were needed. However, the previous Labour government had only just introduced major changes with all-party support. Therefore, when the government said the system was unaffordable there were two possibilities. Either the previous changes were based on a miscalculation by actuaries or the government were lying. As they never admitted that the previous calculations were wrong (and we now know that government actuaries were not alone in getting it badly wrong), many people assumed the government were lying. The increases in retirement age should have started then but the government ducked out of it. The result is that even those of us in our fifties are still not sure when we will reach state retirement age.

I can't really comment on the Darling Plan until I have read it, i will get up to speed on it next week when i am in the UK again and update this thread with my thoughts

That's the last we'll hear of that then.

 

I don't see why retirement age shouldn't rise with life expectancy. Obviously there are statistical problems with the two so I wouldn't want to tie the former to the latter with no leeway but it has to be related.

In the literal sense of the word you are right, there was no racial or Hitler style master race element to it

 

But in many ways this is even worse, Hitler had a vision, an extremely f***ed up one but still a vision that drove him to do what he did

 

Milosevic and Karadzic were nationalists who again did what they did out of a twisted vision

 

Blair and Bush just massacred 26,000 Iraqis for kicks as if they were playing a video game, no vision or motive or warped logic, just plain old killing spree, there was no strategic or military importance into carpet bombing residential areas of Baghdad

This is also mental. Are you suggesting they did it because they were bored?

This is also mental. Are you suggesting they did it because they were bored?

 

Only one way to find out, a war crimes trial in The Hague, will never happen sadly but that is where they both belong

 

If they had attacked military targets, soldiers etc then fine, no issue with that, but targetting civilians is vile

It would save nothing at all. How frequently do you propose these inspections should be carried out? After all, just because somebody doesn't have an expensive television today that doesn't mean they won't have one tomorrow.

 

The state pension was established for everyone and it should stay that way. Of course changes are necessary including an increase in the state pension age. When it was set at 65 for men and 60 for women a high proportion of people didn't reach that age. Even those that did often didn't last for more than a few years (particularly men). Now nearly everybody reaches pension age with a significant number living for a further 20-30 years or more.

 

The big problem is that the retirement age should have risen decades ago but politicians lacked the courage to do it. The first signs that there were problems on the horizon came in the 1980s. The Tory government ordered a review of the pension system and started saying changes were needed. However, the previous Labour government had only just introduced major changes with all-party support. Therefore, when the government said the system was unaffordable there were two possibilities. Either the previous changes were based on a miscalculation by actuaries or the government were lying. As they never admitted that the previous calculations were wrong (and we now know that government actuaries were not alone in getting it badly wrong), many people assumed the government were lying. The increases in retirement age should have started then but the government ducked out of it. The result is that even those of us in our fifties are still not sure when we will reach state retirement age.

 

An inspection at the time of their claim for JSA

 

Again a one off example and not reflective of things in general but i know of someone who owned a highly expensive Hublot watch, I have seen them go for 5 figure sums online, he filed a claim for JSA after his business went 'bust'

 

Surely common sense suggests he should not be entitled to JSA while having such a watch, even though it was bought while the business was doing well

 

The value of the watch is 3+ years worth of adult rate JSA

 

But nothing in your theory adds up. Even someone who thought Blair was a neoliberal stooge who didn't care about most people (and believe me, I know a few) would find it difficult to pin him as a genocidal maniac. Your other examples were exactly that, maniacs who were hell bent on adhering to some great philosophy on life. What was Blair trying to achieve? People don't just kill for no reason, and politicians sanctioning attacks in a foreign country certainly don't.

An inspection at the time of their claim for JSA

 

Again a one off example and not reflective of things in general but i know of someone who owned a highly expensive Hublot watch, I have seen them go for 5 figure sums online, he filed a claim for JSA after his business went 'bust'

 

Surely common sense suggests he should not be entitled to JSA while having such a watch, even though it was bought while the business was doing well

 

The value of the watch is 3+ years worth of adult rate JSA

No doubt your next bright idea that any employee who dares to own something expensive should no longer get paid.

In the literal sense of the word you are right, there was no racial or Hitler style master race element to it

 

But in many ways this is even worse, Hitler had a vision, an extremely f***ed up one but still a vision that drove him to do what he did

 

Milosevic and Karadzic were nationalists who again did what they did out of a twisted vision

 

Blair and Bush just massacred 26,000 Iraqis for kicks as if they were playing a video game, no vision or motive or warped logic, just plain old killing spree, there was no strategic or military importance into carpet bombing residential areas of Baghdad

By this token was Winston Churchill genocidal for the firebombing of Dresden, which had barely any strategic significance and killed 25,000? This is what I'm trying to get at. By equating needless deaths with genocide you degrade what that term is supposed to mean. Loose definition is normally something I'd let slide with most other words, but I find it incredibly odd that you'd use the term so loosely given heritage.

 

Also, the initial invasion - including shock and awe - killed less than 6,000 Iraqis. A horrid loss, yes. Nowhere close to qualifying as genocidal though. If you're counting all 26,000 Iraqis who died in the first two years, then there quite definitely was a vision and motive to the war - that of overthrowing the Saddam regime and bringing in democracy.

Edited October 21, 201311 yr by Cassandra

By this token was Winston Churchill genocidal for the firebombing of Dresden, which had barely any strategic significance and killed 25,000? This is what I'm trying to get at. By equating needless deaths with genocide you degrade what that term is supposed to mean. Loose definition is normally something I'd let slide with most other words, but I find it incredibly odd that you'd use the term so loosely given heritage.

 

Also, the initial invasion - including shock and awe - killed less than 6,000 Iraqis. A horrid loss, yes. Nowhere close to qualifying as genocidal though. If you're counting all 26,000 Iraqis who died in the first two years, then there quite definitely was a vision and motive to the war - that of overthrowing the Saddam regime and bringing in democracy.

Not to mention Churchill's enthusiasm for the use of chemical weapons.

I never liked Blair, to me he was a shiny smiley Tory from day one, and his Iraq policy was nuts and based on fluff. That said, genocide is the attempted wiping out of a group. Blair wasn't trying to wipe out the population, in his mind he was trying to save them from a maniac. So he's not guilty of genocide. He's guilty of being a complete dick who caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands through careless foreign policy and mindless support of an intellectually challenged US president who has bankrupted his own country, virtually by reason of staggering debts, and warmongered for no good reason.

The ONS alleged to have been 'manipulating' the employment statistics. Oh dear..

 

http://www.theguardian.com/business/econom...ow-productivity

No mention then on here of the hugely impressive growth figures

 

Conservatives - Putting the Great back into Britain

http://research.yougov.co.uk/news/2013/10/...pur-gdp-growth/

 

Another piece of great news, consumers feeling good too

 

Soon this will filter into the opinion polls

0.8% is hugely impressive?

It's a good sign of recovery, yeah, but I don't recall you getting out the bunting and saying Labour were putting the Great back into Britain when the economy was growing at similar rates towards the end of their time in power.